LAST MONTH, THE Associated Press exuberantly reported that the Miss America Pageant is looking to incorporate elements of the so-called reality-television genre into its competition. If the changes are approved by the individual states, the pageant, which will air next month on ABC, could loosely follow the format of CBS’s phenomenally successful Survivor, with losing contestants logging votes for the woman they think should win the crown.
Some consider this news yet another sign of the genre’s success. During the past year, endless reports have shrilly heralded the arrival of the latest Fabulous New Reality Show — each more over-the-top than the last. The BBC re-creates life in the trenches of World War I! MTV is casting for Kidnapped! Matt and Ben want YOU to participate in their new reality-TV show, The Runner! (All true.)
And the Nielsen ratings have fed the storm. This past season, Survivor beat long-standing favorite Friends in its Thursday-night slot. The gross-out fest Fear Factor catapulted itself into first place in its time slot for a number of weeks. As Tom Shales at the Washington Post recently fretted, both the sit-com and the quality drama are becoming " endangered species " in the wake of the reality-TV boom.
But other critics aren’t too concerned. Despite a full roster of shows in the pipeline, scads of reality-inspired books and movies, and rah-rah back-patting in networks’ high-rise boardrooms, many critics believe the reality-TV phenomenon of 2001 is like the teen-pop-star trend of 2000 or the Internet craze of 1999: bloated, self-congratulatory, out of touch, and on the fast track to a very necessary shake-out.
Says Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University and the author of The Bush Dyslexicon (Norton, 2001): " As the culture has become more saturated by TV, and as the audience has become more blasé, and as the industry has come to be dominated by a few giant, heavily debt-ridden players who have to compete with each other ever more frantically for the high ball, the content of TV has become more titillating. " He pauses. " The kind of voyeurism that appeals today tends to be quite naked. "
But he’s not surprised. " This always happens, " he says. " [The networks] all try to repeat what succeeded 10 minutes ago. There’s a glut and then a number of them fail. "
Cultural critic Douglas Rushkoff, author of several books, including the online open-source novel Exit Strategy, agrees: " It’s over. "
But if that’s the case, where does television go next?
IF YOU’VE been listening to the TV hype over the past two years, you might think that what’s called reality television is innovative and fresh. But ask your parents: the truth is, the stuff’s been around for decades. You can find its roots in shows like Candid Camera, The National Lampoon Radio Hour, and Cops.
Although the groundwork was laid as far back as the 1950s, today’s reality shows seem more like bastard children of MTV, which aired the first glorious episode of The Real World in 1992. Seven strangers were picked to live in a house, have their lives taped, and start getting real — and Americans were glued to their sets. The formula of intrigue, sexual tension, confession, angry confrontation, and coming-of-age — all on camera — was a winner. But European stations caught on faster than American ones. It wasn’t until the honchos at CBS picked up their binoculars, spotted a hit overseas, and created Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? — their own version of the British game show Millionaire — that the precedent was set for pillaging and appropriating European television shows.
